Friday, April 11, 2008

Clinton & Obama: "Demolition Derby"

"You cannot associate with an America-bashing preacher or invent a story about braving sniper fire while landing at a quiet airport in Tuzla without paying a price."

If you want to see the best material about the American political scene, stay away from CNN and MSNBC -- and instead go to a London-based publication, The Economist. There are several good political writers on the magazine's staff, but the best one goes by the name of "Lexington." Here's what he says in the April 5-11, 2008 issue (page 39):

"It looks as if Pat Robertson and his cohorts were right all along: God really is a Republican. The Democrats ought to have little problem retaking the White House this November, given the unpopular war, the weakening economy, and the anti-Republican backlash. But instead of measuring the White House drapes, they are engaged in what Bill Kristol, a Republican commentator, has gleefully dubbed a 'rollicking demolition derby.'"

In the essay, Lexington adds, "The Democrats are all too aware that their civil war [in the primaries] could spell disaster. A cavalcade of senior Democrats, including senators Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd, have advised Mrs. Clinton to retire to her room with a glass of whisky and a loaded revolver."

In his piece, Lexington gives some very good reasons why Mrs. Clinton should NOT withdraw from the race -- and provides some insights you haven't seen before.

Why you haven't seen such analysis in America -- and especially, why the Clinton campaign isn't heralding it -- are the big questions.You've heard that Obama has won the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the most popular votes. All that is true (although it doesn't include popular votes from Michigan and Florida, both of which Clinton won), but it is one of those truths that may contain a larger falsehood.

Here's "Lexington's" unique analysis of Senator Clinton's situation: "She can . . . make a plausible case that she is the stronger candidate."How? "She [can make the point that] she so far [has] won 14 states with 44% of the country's population (16 states with 53% of the population if you include Florida and Michigan) compared with [Obama's] 27 states with 34% of the population. She has won Florida and Ohio, two battleground states, and will almost certainly win [another,] Pennsylvania."

Steve adds: The main mistake the Clinton campaign made was to pay little attention to the caucus states, starting with Iowa and extending to places like Wyoming and Idaho. Obama wounded her with a thousand cuts in the smaller states, and that's a major reason he's ahead in pledged delegates.

Another element that hurt her was the bloc voting by Blacks in states like South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Is Senator Obama going to win SC, GA, MS, and LA? He's not going to come close to winning any of them. In the general election, he's going to have real problems winning most of the large states Mrs. Clinton carried in the primaries (such as TX, OH, and PA). Obama will do better than Kerry in many of the "red states," but he looks unlikely to win any of them.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, as looks likely, he will be a "sure thing" in three states: Illinois, Rhode Island, and Vermont. He's likely, though not a certainty, to win Maine, Connecticut, and perhaps Delaware. In every other state, McCain should be the favorite.

As Lexington explains the poor position of Senators Obama and Clinton: "You cannot associate with an America-bashing preacher or invent a story about braving sniper fire while landing at a quiet airport in Tuzla without paying a price."

Overall, things are looking very good for John McCain.

Over this weekend, I'll have additional material about how The Economist sees the emerging race for the presidency. A yearly subscription to the publication costs an imposing $99, but it's worth it.


Mike Usman said...

I won't argue about whether or not Melissa Hart has "integrity" but

I'm certain she doesn't have much of a constituency here.

Pennsylvania is famous for it's moderates of both parties: Ridge,

Heinz, Specter, Casey (both of them) and, yes,...Altmire. Jason

ranks as the 211th most liberal member of congess and also as the

219th most conservative! [rankings in National Journal, 3/8/08]

That's hardly a "Pelosi-Murtha-type liberal" by anyone's measure.

We are not, as a rule, anti-environment, anti-civil-rights, anti-public

health or anti-seniors, yet Melissa had a 0% voting record on all

those issues while she was in office.

[] A far-right,

neoconservative idealogue like Melissa Hart does not represent our

values, nor our political interests. She should either move to the

deep South or stick to what neocon ex-politicians do best:


Stephen R. Maloney said...

Mike Usman failed to note that Jason Altmire was a lobbyist for one of the most corrupt organizations in the U.S., UPMC. That's the "non-profit" organization that declared a profit ("surplus") of $676 million in 2007. UPMC is also a major supporter of John Murtha. Mike is an employee of the Altman organization, so he has a dollars-and-cents interest in his nonsense.

Mike Usman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mike Usman said...

"Jason Altmire was a lobbyist for one of the most corrupt organizations in the U.S., UPMC." OK! That's true! That's why, in the 2006 congressional race, UPMC gave more money Hart! Yup, UPMC was Missy's 5th biggest corporate contributor, giving her 50% more than than they gave her opponent, Jason Altmire. Somehow, I don't find that to be convincing evidence that Jason is in Jeff Romoff's back pocket. [Thanks for the tip about, Steve! That helped a lot.]

"Mike is an employee of the Altman [sic] organization" I guess Steve meant 'Altmire', but he was so angry that somebody called him out on his BS that he even screwed that up. No, Mr. Maloney, nice guess but I don't work for Altmire. I'm just a constituent.